critical commentary on adult production

Menu

PVV – The Devil and Shelley Lubben **update & musings**

Parts 1 & 2 of the documentary film The Devil and Shelley Lubben were released a little over a week ago; and, not surprisingly, people have had many strong and varied reactions to the content…

…the most unexpected of which has been Part 2’s removal from YouTube!! I have left the links up in my original posting about the film’s release so you too can see this “rationale,” but supposedly “[this segment of the film] has been removed as a violation of YouTube’s policy on nudity or sexual content.”

Now, the effect(s) and/or meaning(s) associated with any happening often take a while to reveal themselves; and, as a comparative historical sociologist who also loves herself some grounded theory, I have the tendency to sit back and watch just about everything (at least for a while)… consequently, I’ve been watching peoples’ reactions to this film for the past few days. Here’s a very small handful of some of the things I’ve seen:

– many bloggers talk/write about the film. One of my favorites, Anthony Kennerson, offers some shimmering and scathing commentary here and here.

– comment battles abound!!

– self-referred “Blasian Bytch” N’jaila Rhee point out the obvious racism permeating portions of Shelley Lubben’s platform here (it surprises me to no end that this racism piece is not discussed more frequently).

– Maxxx Peters discusses the (obvious) lack of nuance present in many of Shelley’s points here.

– and at least one group representing the Christian community associates Shelley with false profits and cults (see tag) here.

It goes on and on.

Now, it could just be where I look, but it seems like there have been a lot of positive reactions to The Devil and Shelley Lubben already. This seems to be due, at least in part, to an overwhelmingly negative -or at least incredulous- perception of Shelley’s 1) credentials and 2) perspective on adult. Over and over, I read statements that suggest her “arguments'” are both simplistic and situated in a place of personal investment.

Clearly tons of industry-related and regular old folks can see through Shelley’s very subjective positionality, but what I don’t get is this: why do presumably “objective,” measured, and/or vetted institutions and entities continue to take this woman seriously?

I understand why filmmakers Lydia Lee and Michael Whiteacre take her seriously. They’re on the defense (well, offense now), and they are taking a stand for their friends and lives and experiences …and I can sorta understand how Shelley’s EveryPerson followers and advocates with strong sentiments in opposition of the adult industry are dazzled by her flamboyance …but how can scholars and scientists and policy makers not see through this charade?

If Shelley were, for example, advocating on behalf of ending US occupation in the Middle East or spaying/neutering pets or in support of Planned Parenthood with an appropriately relevant repertoire comparable to the one she currently employs regarding adult, would she be considered an “expert” on anything? Invited to speak to government officials or on panels at prestigious US universities? Would she be invited to debate at the University of Cambridge??!! (more on that later)

The answer to all of these questions is, of course, “No.”

Regardless of how one feels about adult content or the industry that produces it, this whole Shelley Lubben thing seems to boil down to one simple question: wtf?